Slowing Down with Sandmarc ND Filters

Neutral Density filters, more commonly called ND filters, are very useful. It’s worthwhile to have at least one ND filter available for your photography. Maybe you don’t know which one (or ones) to own and why you’d use it. I recently got some ND filters, and perhaps my story will be helpful to you.

In my How to get Filmic Photographs from your iPhone article I explained that my wife has a Sandmarc case for her iPhone 13 Pro. I thought she’d also appreciate some ND filters for her phone, since she uses it regularly for videography, so I got her three Sandmarc ND filters that can attach to her iPhone case. You see, ND filters are common in cinematography because you want a shutter speed close to the frames-per-second you’re recording in order to avoid jutter (a.k.a. stutter or choppy) when panning or whenever there is movement. Getting a slow enough shutter speed in bright conditions can be difficult without an ND filter. Unfortunately, the ND filters didn’t really work out with her iPhone workflow, so they initially went unused. Not wanting to let the filters go to waste, I reimagined how they could be utilized, and I figured out how to make them work for me. Now I see them as an essential tool for my photography!

Before I get to the filters, I want to briefly talk about one other Sandmarc item I have: iPhone Tripod, Compact Edition. This was also for my wife, but she doesn’t use it often—only occasionally—so I borrow it regularly, except that I use it with my Fujifilm cameras and not my phone. I need a small tripod for my desk when I do the SOOC Live broadcasts, but the one I’ve owned for years kind of sucks and just barely works; however, with Season 3, I began using the Sandmarc tripod, and it is so much better—perfect for the job! I also discovered that it’s great for travel because it folds up very small and doesn’t take up much space (about 8.5 inches). The tripod only expands to a little taller than two feet, but it is sturdy enough to hold my X-T5 with a lens as large as the Fujinon 90mm, so for occasional casual use—which is all I ever use tripods for in my photography—it is just fine. Since getting it, the Sandmarc tripod has become my most-used. I don’t think that it’s intended for “real” cameras like the Fujifilm X-T5, but that’s what I use it for, and it works great. I bring this up because tripods are closely associate with ND filters.

Neutral Density filters block the amount of light entering the lens, which allows for slower shutter speeds. Why would you want to do this? I already mentioned that in cinematography, slowing the shutter can reduce juttering. In still photography, slowing down the shutter allows you to show motion by way of blurring moving things, and it allows for high-ISO photography in bright conditions.

Sandmarc’s iPhone ND filters come in a pack of three: ND16, ND32, and ND64. The ND16 reduces light by four stops, the ND32 reduces by five stops, and the ND64 reduces by six stops. I most commonly use the ND16, but for longer exposures, the other two certainly come in handy. Did I mention that Sandmarc’s ND filters are also polarized? They are! Polarizers reduce glare and haze, which can be particularly useful when photographing water. Pretty cool, eh?

So if these ND filters are made for iPhones, how am I using them on my Fujifilm cameras? Technically, I’m not using them on my camera, I’m attaching them to my Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 lens. The ND filters have 40.5mm threads, and the 27mm lens accepts 39mm threads, so I purchased a cheap Rise 39mm-40.5mm step-up ring, which allows me to use the Sandmarc ND filters on my Fujinon lens. It works like a charm!

There are three ways in which I’ve integrated ND filters into my photography: slow shutter with a tripod, slow shutter without a tripod, and high-ISO in daylight. I’ll briefly explain each below.

ND Filter + Tripod

1.4 Second Exposure — Upcoming Recipe
1/9 Second Exposure — AgfaChrome RS 100 Recipe

The classic way ND filters are used for still photography is with a tripod. By utilizing a slow shutter speed, things within the frame that are moving will become a blur. Waterfalls are probably the most common subject for this technique, where water appears to be a streak of blur or even a mist if the exposure is long enough. Typically, a maximum shutter speed of 1/15 is required for blurring the subject, but there are a few factors—lens focal length, speed and distance of the subject, desired blur—that could affect the necessary shutter speed, either faster or slower. The longer the shutter is open, the more blur you will get. Because you want everything that’s not moving to be sharp, a tripod is required for this technique.

ND Filter without Tripod

1/20 Second Exposure — Reggie’s Portra Recipe
1/2 Second Exposure — Emulsion ’86 Recipe

Who says that pictures have to be sharp? Maybe you want everything in the frame to be blurry! For this, you simply remove the tripod and use a slow shutter while the camera is handheld. Panning is one example of this. Using a slow shutter speed without a tripod is probably the most difficult ND filter technique, but there is a lot of opportunity for creativity, which means there is potential for dramatic or interesting photographs. The longer the exposure the more difficult this technique is—unless you’re really going for abstract art—so be careful not to set the shutter too slow.

High ISO in Bright Daylight

ISO 12800, f/8, 1/550 — GAF 500 Recipe
ISO 12800, f/8, 1/450 — GAF 500 Recipe
ISO 12800, f/4, 1/3200 — Ilford Delta Push Process Recipe
ISO 12800, f/8, 1/400 — Ilford Delta Push Process Recipe
ISO 25600, f/4, 1/1900 — Ilford HP5 Plus 400 Push Process Recipe
ISO 25600, f/2.8, 1/350 — Ilford HP5 Plus 400 Push Process Recipe

You might think that purposefully setting a high-ISO in bright daylight is a weird thing to do. The general advice given since the beginning of photography is to use the lowest ISO that you can get away with. If you can use ISO 200, use ISO 200. If you need to bump it up to ISO 400 because the light is dimmer, use ISO 400. Only use ISO 800 if you have to. And ISO 1600 should be used with extreme caution. ISOs higher than that are for emergency purposes only. But is that still good advice? In my opinion, Fujifilm cameras are excellent at high-ISO because—thanks to the X-Trans sensor and processor—they better control the aesthetic of digital noise, rendering it more like film grain. In other words, purposefully using high-ISOs can produce a more analog-like result. Some of my Film Simulation Recipes actually require ultra-high ISOs, and using them in bright daylight can be difficult; however, ND filters make it much more practical. My X100V has a built-in ND filter, but my other Fujifilm cameras do not; ND filters have opened up the opportunity to use these high-ISO Recipes in situations that would be much more difficult otherwise—this is how I’m most often using my Sandmarc ND filters.

Find these Film Simulation Recipes and nearly 300 more on the Fuji X Weekly — Film Recipes App!

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm X-T5 in black:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Fujinon 27mm f/2.8:  Amazon   B&H   Moment

Note: the top four pictures were captured with a Fujifilm X-E4 & Fujinon 35mm f/2; images 1, 2 & 4 are Pacific Blues and image 3 is Kodak Portra 400 v2. The other pictures were captured using my Fujifilm X-T5 & Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 with a Sandmarc ND filter attached.

My Fujifilm X100V Adapter & Filters

I’ve been asked a few times recently what adapter and filters I use on my Fujifilm X100V. I will state right off the bat that my choices aren’t necessarily the “best” ones, it’s just what I’ve done. There are likely better options, and perhaps different choices that would be better for you, so keep that in mind. With that said, let me get right into the adapter and filters that I use on my Fujifilm X100V.

The X100V doesn’t initially appear to be able to accept filters. There are no screw-in threads visible. But there’s a “secret” ring around the lens that unscrews to reveal threads, but these threads cannot accept filters. You need to buy an adapter to screw into those threads that has its own threads that filters can screw into. Make sense?

The top reason why you want to do this is because the X100V is almost weather-sealed. The one unsealed point is the lens, but Fujifilm says that if you put a filter in front of it, that should give you protection from the elements. To complete the weather-sealing process, you need to buy an adapter and filter.

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm offers their own adapter, but it’s not cheap. I’m a cheapskate, so I went with the $10 Haoge adapter instead, and saved about $40. I think the only disadvantage is that the lens cap fits a little loosely over the adapter, but probably fits snugly on the Fujifilm option (just guessing). There are lots of other choices, including some that have a lens hood included. I don’t think which adapter you choose is all that important, but obviously it’s got to work for you.

I have tons of filters, some going back to the film days. Many of them are not 49mm (the correct filter size for the X100V), but some are, and I don’t use all of them. The number one most used filter is the Fotasy 49mm Ultra Slim UV, which is less than $10. For under $20, it’s possible to add that layer of weather protection to give you some peace of mind. I also own a Hoya UV filter (that predates my X100V), but it’s black and I prefer silver, so I don’t usually use it (yet I have used it), and a Nicna UV filter, which I have no idea where it came from. The UV filter doesn’t do much for you photographically, but it does give a layer of protection, and 90% of the time this is how my X100V is configured.

About 10% of the time I use a diffusion filter instead of (or in conjunction with) the UV filter. The one that I use the most is the 5% CineBloom, which gives a very subtle effect. A 10% CineBloom and 1/4 Black Pro Mist are occasionally used, while a 20% CineBloom is almost never used because it is so strong. If I could only have one, it would be the 5% CineBloom, but I do use the 10% CineBloom and 1/4 Black Pro Mist sometimes, and even use them together, so it’s nice having them around. I have considered buying a 1/8 Black Pro Mist because I think I’d use it frequently, but I haven’t pulled the trigger on that one yet.

What’s left? I own a Tiffen 49mm Circular Polarizer that I rarely use. I probably should use it more, because CPLs are great for reducing unwanted reflections. To some extent, it’s theoretically possible to mimic Color Chrome FX Blue with a CPL filter, I think, although I’ve never tried. I also have a Hoya Intensifier (a.k.a. Didymium filter or Starscape filter) that I’ve used a few times. I have some 49mm color filters for B&W film photography, but obviously those don’t work well on the X100V (I tried). I also have a Hoya 80A filter, which actually does work on the X100V, but I pretty much never use it.

I’m not sure which filters are right for you, but at the very least consider attaching an adapter and UV filter to give your Fujifilm X100V a little more weather protection. I like using diffusion filters sometimes, but not all of the time, and usually less is more when it comes to these. That’s what works for me, but you’ll have to figure out what works for you. Hopefully, this article is helpful to some of you. Let me know in the comments which filters you use on your X100-series camera, because I’d love to know.

Hoya Intensifier Filter For Fall Photographs

Hoya Intensifier Filter

The Hoya Intensifier filter claims to increase the intensity of reds and oranges within an image while not adding an overall color shift. It’s a great promise that might be especially beneficial for fall foliage photography. But does it work? Is it worth buying?

I have had my Hoya Intensifier filter for several years now, but I rarely use it. It does, in fact, intensify the reds and oranges within an image, but the promise of not making an overall color shift is false. The filter has a purple tint to the glass, so it should not come as a surprise that it adds a slight purple cast to the picture. That color shift is what makes the reds and oranges appear intensified. That’s how it works. In fact, if you don’t use the filter, but shift the white balance a couple spots towards purple, you can accomplish something similar. While I think that this filter could be beneficial for photographing autumn leaves, I don’t think it’s anywhere near an essential item for that purpose. If you like how it makes pictures look, by all means buy it and use it. If not, skip it. That’s my advice.

Here are two examples of how the Hoya Intensifier filter effects the picture:

29100656254_f3f2458391_c

No filter.

29100666704_ca375e0161_c

With intensifier filter.

29102903343_615694d0ce_c

No filter.

29436365440_f8066310ff_c-1

With intensifier filter.

There is another reason why you might use the Hoya Intensifier filter. This filter reduces light pollution in astrophotography. It does a decent job of it, in fact. If I’m photographing stars somewhere that I know will have light pollution, I like to use this filter to reduce the effects of it in my pictures. If I’m photographing stars somewhere where there is little to no light pollution, I won’t use the filter, as I prefer to not put extra glass between the subject and the sensor if I don’t have to. If you are interesting in astrophotography but aren’t near any dark sky parks, the Hoya Intensifier filter is probably worth buying and using.

To conclude, the Hoya Intensifier filter is perhaps OK for autumn foliage pictures. On one hand it does seem to intensify the reds and oranges within the picture, but on the other hand it does so by way of a color cast, which can be done in-camera with a white balance shift, and is opposite of what Hoya claims. But if you like to photograph stars and want to reduce the effects of light pollution on your pictures, this filter is a good option for that.